Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 485  The Eastern Himalayan Corridor in Prehistory   by scholars who proposed other models, e. g. Sino-Burman [Ramstedt 1957], Sino-Himalayan [Bodman 1976, 1980] and Sino-Kiranti [Starostin 1994]. An historical account of scholarly thinking on Trans-Himalayan languages and their genetic relationships has been provided elsewhere [van Driem 2013]. The neutral geographical name Trans-Himalayan obviates the termino- logical confusion which arises from some scholars using the term ‘Tibeto- Burman’ in its original sense to denote the language family as a whole, whilst the Sino-Tibetanists use the term ‘Tibeto-Burman’ to denote a non-existent taxon in their empirically unsupported family tree. More Trans-Himalayan languages are known today than were recognised in Klaproth’s day. Today 42 subgroups can be identified, as shown in the updated Fallen Leaves model the British colonial administration in Asia during the Napoleonic wars, but his hypothesis outlived him. In 1924, Indo-Chinese was renamed Sino-Tibetan by Jean Przyluski. By Przyluski’s time, Austroasiatic had been removed, but Sino-Tibetan then still comprised Sino-Daic, Hmong-Mien and a truncated version of ‘Tibeto-Burman’. This typologically and, in part, racially inspired theory played a large role in American academics after the Great Depression and in China after the Cultural Revolution [van Driem 2013]. Figure 10. Fallen Leaves. Thirty out of forty-two subgroups lie south of the Himalayan divide, seven to the north and east, and five (Tshangla, Bodish, Nungish, Lolo-Burmese and Kachinic) straddle both flanks of the Himalayas